I know this is Greenwald, so some of you are just going to lose your shit whenever you read the link, but someone please explain to me why this is so controversial:
Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?
Just consider what one single, isolated attack on American soil more than a decade ago did to Sullivan, Packer and company: the desire for violence which that one attack 11 years ago unleashed is seemingly boundless by time or intensity. Given the ongoing American quest for violence from that one-day attack, just imagine the impact which continuous attacks over the course of a full decade must have on those whom we’ve been invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting.
Our mere presence in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War I years was what helped to radicalize Osama bin Laden. What on earth is so controversial about noting that a decades long reign of bombing and drone strikes and civilian casualties might be the motivating force behind terrorists plotting and attempting another 9/11 style attack? Somewhat related:
Obviously I have no desire for a nuclear Iran, but look at that map and tell me- are they really that crazy for wanting a nuclear deterrent? Ask North Korea and Saddam Hussein. Oh, wait.